*ar

Reconstructed from at least one Carian name, attested in Memphis, c. 530-550 (Kammerzell 1993a:169, 171).

[Zs.S.]

gen. sg.

A[r]ḅikarmś

E.Me 23

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:353, checked against the photograph in O. Masson 1978a:Pl.X, 2. Only the lower part of a single vertical line has been preserved from ‹ḅ› and thus, its reading is based on the restoration. The restoration by Kammerzell 1993a:214, based on the Lycian personal name (in Greek transmission) Αρπιγραμος (LGPN V.B:60 s.v.), is cautiously, but generally accepted (Schürr 1992a:139 [“möglicherweise”]; Adiego 1994a:31 [“totalement convançaintes”], Adiego 2007a:353 [“if correct”]). Adiego 1994a:35 cautiously adds Ardybyr, but this depends on the exact segmentation of the name and there are arguments that the second member is -ybyr and not -dybyr, see s.v.

[Zs.S.]

If the restoration is correct, then we are obviously dealing with a compound name consisting of ar- and bikarm-, a variant of the well-attested onomastic element pik(a)rm / b(i)krm (for the discussion of its spelling see s.v.). Unfortunately, ar- has not been identified yet independently and thus, its meaning is unknown, while the second member of the compound is not helpful in narrowing down the possibilities. Arjom is probably a derivative of ar-, but since its meaning is unknown (see s.v.), this is not helpful either, except that it argues for a substantive. Compound names with ara- as their first element are not unknown (they may be theophoric, Neumann 1978a:126), but the Lycian form, if genuine, argues against this connection for it does not imply an earlier form *arV-.

[Zs.S.]